GMS: My backside itchy again telling me to whack WP again

GoMadSeng · Sep 3, 2014

Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

Now worse, its supporters and members are openly saying that they do not wish to see other opposition parties to win any seats? What do you think it is?

Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
Who will believe the Devil to preach the Bible?

Who will believe someone who is talking against unity to preach unity?

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

GoMadSeng said:
If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

Arrogance?

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
Arrogance?

There are only "arrogance" or "dishonesty" anyway, so take your pick.

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

GoMadSeng said:
Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

Goh Meng Seng doesn't appear shy to tell the world that he is but a naive and simple-minded guy who prefers others to say things he is agreeable with to sooth his ears, never mind if they do not mean what they say.

It is alright to say you are for opposition unity and then pull out from an alliance or form your own new small party. It is alright to say you are the best opposition party, the only one doing this and that or having this and that without any of those traits manifested.

Luvurbaht · Sep 3, 2014

Harmass Goh supports Hamas. Give him a tudong.

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
There are only "arrogance" or "dishonesty" anyway, so take your pick.

Honesty & arrogance. Both not mutually exclusive.

Not going to replace PAP: honesty
Not going to negotiate or co-operate with other parties: arrogance.

bigboss · Sep 3, 2014

If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

1. It is just political wayang to say it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party. Wayang kulit, lah.

2. Choosing to walk its own path? It is just a strategy of common sense. Why get entangled with other "political has-beens" who are like headless chicken in the political arena? Chartering its own course is a better option than to get bogged down by other political parties through affiliation.

leetahbar · Sep 3, 2014

if politic is as easy as ABC, there shall be peace in the world.

politic is made up of people and people are naturally for themselves first before for others. they have to satisfy their greed first before there's scraps for others.

if one whol thinks the other way round, they are now mostly in the obituary section :(

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
Honesty & arrogance. Both not mutually exclusive.

Not going to replace PAP: honesty
Not going to negotiate or co-operate with other parties: arrogance.

Dishonesty not honesty. Read my above response.

Going to replace PAP with just 5 candidates: __________
Say going to negotiate or co-operate with other parties but only under their own terms: __________

kaipoh · Sep 3, 2014

Why you guys bother about him, he is not LKY, LHL he is no body low life half full container in Sg. If we don't care about him respond to his drivels he will die of natural death.

GoMadSeng said:
Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
If you have a party which keeps saying it is not going to replace PAP as ruling party but at the same time, openly declare that it is not going to negotiate nor cooperate with other parties because it "chooses to walk its own path", what do you think it is?

Now worse, its supporters and members are openly saying that they do not wish to see other opposition parties to win any seats? What do you think it is?

Goh Meng Seng SatuSingapura
September 1 · Edited
Who will believe the Devil to preach the Bible?

Who will believe someone who is talking against unity to preach unity?

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
Dishonesty not honesty. Read my above response.

Going to replace PAP with just 5 candidates: __________
Say going to negotiate or co-operate with other parties but only under their own terms: __________

Let me clarify:

1. WP is being brutally honest when it says it cannot replace the PAP. No opposition party on its own can replace the PAP for the next 2 elections. The only hope of replacing the PAP is with an opposition coalition govt.

2. WP is being arrogant when it says it will not negotiate or co-operate with other parties. It is their right of course to pursue the strategy they deem most appropriate, as bigboss above says, but then they also can't blame the other oppo parties for viewing such a move as arrogance.

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
Let me clarify:

1. WP is being brutally honest when it says it cannot replace the PAP. No opposition party on its own can replace the PAP for the next 2 elections. The only hope of replacing the PAP is with an opposition coalition govt.

2. WP is being arrogant when it says it will not negotiate or co-operate with other parties. It is their right of course to pursue the strategy they deem most appropriate, as bigboss above says, but then they also can't blame the other oppo parties for viewing such a move as arrogance.

I have never disagreed with this line of reasoning. My point is that no other party has lived up with a better alternative than these 2 approaches.

The opposite of "honest" is "dishonest". "Arrogant" is not the opposite of "dishonest", yes, in this case is a better alternative than being "dishonest".

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
The opposite of "honest" is "dishonest". "Arrogant" is not the opposite of "dishonest", yes, in this case is a better alternative than being "dishonest".

Among opposition circles, WP's honesty about its intentions has never been in doubt. So 'dishonesty' is not an issue here.

If anything many feel that WP is too conservative and perhaps complacent in not considering a pan-opposition assault. But as I say, it's their prerogative.

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
If anything many feel that WP is too conservative and perhaps complacent in not considering a pan-opposition assault. But as I say, it's their prerogative.

Which is why I said no other party has led by example to live up with a better alternative, which probably means such a "pan-opposition assault" does not exist in the Singapore context at all.

3_M · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
Honesty & arrogance. Both not mutually exclusive.

Not going to replace PAP: honesty
Not going to negotiate or co-operate with other parties: arrogance.

U got to have something to put on the table in a negotiation. Negotiation to non WP oppositions merely means seeking guarantee that WP won't intrude in their 'territory' while they practically offer nothing in return. Even in the real world why should anyone, any business organization not just political party sit down and negotiate with anyone that comes knocking at their door without much to show?

I don't think WP is arrogant but they are just pragmatic.

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

3_M said:
I don't think WP is arrogant but they are just pragmatic.

To add, if there is no alternative to something, labels like "arrogance" or "complacent" shouldn't even come into the picture. Perhaps "conservative", yes.

It is not even an issue of "prerogative" since there is no better option.

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
To add, if there is no alternative to something, labels like "arrogance" or "complacent" shouldn't even come into the picture. Perhaps "conservative", yes.

It is not even an issue of "prerogative" since there is no better option.

Labels are inherently subjective. What is 'conservative' to one may be 'liberal' to another. What is 'pragmatic' or 'strategic' for a WP supporter may be construed as 'arrogant' or 'complacent' to a non-WP oppo supporter. What is a 'better' option to you may be a 'worse' option to me.

So be it.

tanwahp · Sep 3, 2014

yellowarse said:
Labels are inherently subjective. What is 'conservative' to one may be 'liberal' to another. What is 'pragmatic' or 'strategic' for a WP supporter may be construed as 'arrogant' or 'complacent' to a non-WP oppo supporter. What is a 'better' option to you may be a 'worse' option to me.

So be it.

It is not always about each entitled to their opinion. Depending on the gravity of the label, you have to back them up. "Arrogance" lies somewhere there.

If I label Chee a pedophile and Vincent Wijeysingha an animal-rapist, I cannot say that is my inherently subjective opinion.

And of course, labelling comes with equal standards applied to all with no selectivity and singling out.

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
If I label Chee a pedophile and Vincent Wijeysingha an animal-rapist, I cannot say that is my inherently subjective opinion.

Fallacious arguments. If you say Chee is a paedophile, you're accusing him of committing an act. It's no longer an opinion. Ditto if you say Vincent is an animal rapist.

If I say that not negotiating with other oppo parties is arrogant, that's an opinion of an act. Likewise if you say that not negotiating with other oppo parties is pragmatic, that's your opinion of the same act. And you're entitled to it. So am I.

And opinions can be very subjective. Get it straight.

yellowarse · Sep 3, 2014

tanwahp said:
And of course, labelling comes with equal standards applied to all with no selectivity and singling out.

Naturally. If Tan Jee Say of Singaporeans First says that he's not interested in negotiating with the other oppo parties and want to go it alone, I'd say that's arrogant too. Otherwise it's a double standard.

--------------------------
Seeking common ground with other opposition parties

September 2, 2014 at 12:17am

On Thursday 28 August 2014, I wrote to the leaders of active opposition parties, requesting a courtesy call on them to introduce ourselves from Singaporeans First and to learn from their experiences (as we are a new party). This letter is appended below.

"Democratic Progressive Party (Attn: Mohamad Hamim and Benjamin Pwee),
Pertubuhan Kebangsaan Melayu Singapura (Attn: Abu Mohamed and Abd Jamal Rashid),
National Solidarity Party (Attn: Sebastian Teo and Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss),
Reform Party (Attn: Andy Zhu and Kenneth Jeyaretnam),
Singapore Democratic Alliance/Singapore Justice Party (Attn: Desmond Lim),
Singapore Democratic Party (Attn: Jeffrey George and Dr Chee Soon Juan),
Singapore People's Party (Attn: Lina Chiam and Chiam See Tong),
Workers' Party (Attn: Sylvia Lim and Low Thia Khiang).

Dear fellow champions of a better Singapore,

I am pleased to inform you that SINGAPOREANS FIRST is now officially registered as a political party. Our Party Manifesto is attached for your information.

We are proud to be able to join you in wanting to build a better Singapore for all Singaporeans. You have all contributed much in this effort. As a new party, we can learn a lot from your experiences. Accordingly, we would like to pay a courtesy call on each of you, to introduce ourselves to you, discuss your experiences and find out how we can complement you and work together with you for the betterment of Singapore.

We would appreciate it if you could let us know a suitable time in the next few weeks for us to make a courtesy call on you.
Yours sincerely,

Tan Jee Say
Secretary-General of the Protem Committee
cc Members of the Protem Committee (details in attachment)"

GMS: My backside itchy again telling me to whack WP again

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Similar threads